A First Amendment Victory!

CNS reports that a Wisconsin pro-life group scored a major victory, both for themselves and for the citizenry of the United States, in particular:

At issue were three television and radio ads that Wisconsin Right to Life aired in 2004.

The ads informed the public that U.S. senators were filibustering President Bush's conservative judicial nominees, and the ads asked viewers to urge Sens. Russ Feingold and Herbert Kohl (Wisconsin Democrats) to oppose the filibusters.

Wisconsin Right to Life filed a motion to air the ads within 30 days of the Wisconsin primary election.

The McCain/Feingold law established a blackout period 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election where groups may not mention the name of a candidate on the ballot. In 2004, Senator Feingold was on the primary election ballot.

"Wisconsin Right to Life successfully argued that grassroots lobbying ads which do not mention or refer to elections should be allowed to be aired as a free speech right protected by the First Amendment, and the court agreed," said Barbara Lyons, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life.

"One of the most basic rights enjoyed by our democracy is one which allows citizen groups to petition the government on issues of public interest. It is extremely gratifying to know that our courts are willing to protect such a basic right," she added.

This is huge. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act is, IMO, in direct violation of our First Amendment right to freedom of political speech at its most basic level. The FEC, on behalf of McCain-Feingold, argued that the ads were "a thinly disguised attempt" to influence the 2004 election. The federal court disagreed. But even if they were attempts to influence the election, what of it? Do we now live in a nation where the First Amendment has become irrelevant in the very process which ensures governance by the people and for the people?

While I realize that Wisconsin Right to Life is arguing this case based on the part of the First Amendment that allows citizens to redress grievances, the whole premise of McCain-Feingold, which limits political freedom of speech at its most basic, grassroots level, is flawed. In light of the First Amendment, McCain-Feingold has no business being on the books in the first place.

This case is expected to go to SCOTUS, and I certainly hope it does. McCain-Feingold needs to be struck down dead in its tracks, and the sooner, the better. McCain's (and for that matter, Feingold's) willingness to play so freely and cavalierly with our First Amendment rights should in and of itself disqualify either of them from any consideration for POTUS.

****UPDATE****
Aryeh Spero at Caucus for America has a must-read piece on the subject of McCain-Feingold. (h/t Delton Digest)